Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-25 TJR PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 25, 2006 JR KONA ACQUISITIONS LLC (SMA A regularly advertised hearing on the application of 06-000013) was called to order at 2:56 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. Kimo Alameda PRESENT:Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. William R. Graham Jeffrey McCall Fred GaldonesRene’ Siracusa Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Allen Salavea Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: JR KONA ACQUISITIONS LLC (SMA 06-000013) Special Management Area Use Permit to allow a new addition and renovation to the existing Big Island Honda facility, open auto display, and employee parking. The properties involved are located on the makai side of Kuakini Highway, approximately 600 feet west of the intersection of Palani Road and Kuakini Highway, Kailua-Kona, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-5:87 and 88. ALAMEDA:Next on the agenda, J. R. Kona Acquisitions, LLC, Special Management Area Permit 06-000013. This is a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow a new addition and renovation to the existing Big Island Honda facility, open auto display, and employee parking. Staff? Norman? HAYASHI:J. R. Kona Acquisition, LLC is requesting a SMA Use Permit to allow the renovations to its existing facility, as well as to do some improvements. The subject property is indicated by this red dot. This is Kuakini Highway and this road running mauka-makai is Palani Road. The hotel that we’re meeting at is located here. So the subject property abuts this particular property and it’s situated right in the back here. Basically, the existing facility is situated on Parcels 86 and 87 and new improvements would be made on 87 and 88. These lands are owned by Lanihau Partnership and Lanihau Partnership has authorized the Applicant to apply for the SMA Use Permit. Now, moving on to the overall Site Plan, as I indicated this is Kuakini Highway and this area here would be, off the map, would be Palani Road running mauka-makai. This is the King EXHIBIT C 1 Kamehameha Kona Beach Hotel’s property abutting the makai portion, boundary of the property. The King Kamehameha Mall that most of you are familiar with is located right abutting Parcel 86. And the West Hawai`i Today facility is located one lot away from the subject property. This property lot abutting the subject property to the north is currently vacant. The yellow-shaded area is the existing facility, which is Big Island Honda. There’s an existing parking lot on this section of the property; and this, again, would be Parcel 86. The area under consideration would be these two parcels, Parcel 87 and 88. The Applicant intends to construct an addition to the existing facility, and that’s in this orange- shaded area. The proposed addition is approximately 13,000 square feet in size. The existing, the yellow-shaded area is approximately 10,000 square feet. So the total building will eventually become 23,000 square feet in size. The height of the building would not exceed 25 feet. Within this particular zoned district, the height limit is 30 feet. Parking would also be provided at this location which is currently vacant. This particular property is vacant, and proposed accesses would be from an easement located to the north side of the property. There are two proposed accesses proposed for this development. The estimated improvement cost for this particular development would be, or renovation will be $2.3 million. Previously the existing facility and improvements, existing improvements, were granted under SMA 330 issued back in 1992, and subsequently amended in 1998. As far as the Kailua Village Design Commission, since this particular property is within that district, the Commission did review the proposal, current proposal for expansion, and in November of 2005 recommended approval of the improvements. The current General Plan designation is Medium Density Urban. The current County zoning is Village Commercial - 10,000 square feet. And the estimated distance from the property to the shoreline is approximately 1,000-plus feet. Again, access would be from Kuakini Highway, which currently has a 80-foot right-of-way with a 24-foot wide pavement. Water is available to the property and wastewater would be through utilizing the existing County sewer line. Since the initial Background Report was written, the Department of Public Works, Department of Water Supply and Civil Defense submitted comments. All of you have received those comments since the Background Report was prepared. The Planning Director is recommending approval with proposed conditions. Are there any questions? Yes, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:When this was originally approved, you know, what’s there now, was Chapter 17 on Landscaping imposed on it or did this happen before Chapter 17 was written? Because I noticed from looking at the photographs, there doesn’t seem to be any landscaping unless you want to call fields of weeds landscaping, which I don’t. So I’m wondering if there EXHIBIT C 2 was a requirement when they first built it. Because if there was then it looks like at this point they’re not in compliance; and I’d like that clarified, please. HAYASHI:Okay, as far as back in 1992, there was no Rule 17. However, when the permit was amended back in 1998, there was, I believe Rule 17 was in effect. However, the addition at that particular time, amendment to SMA 330 that was granted back in 1998, was basically for the parking lot. As far as when we do Plan Approval, we normally do require that a landscaping strip be provided, that was prior to the Rule 17 being adopted. So I would assume that there probably was a requirement for landscaping along the property lines within the project area. SIRACUSA:And would landscaping then be required now if we approved this for all three parcels, or just for the two parcels that are coming before us? HAYASHI:Yeah, the permit that we’re dealing with, the parcels we’re dealing with right now are only the two parcels and not the Parcel 86. So the landscaping requirement would apply to Parcels 87 and 88. SIRACUSA:But if 86 is not compliance with Rule 17, then it seems to me that we ought to make them get into compliance. Could we, would it be possible to make that one of the conditions? HAYASHI:Perhaps legal counsel can respond to that. However, I’m sure that the Applicant would be more than happy to comply with that requirement for the existing Parcel 86; and perhaps that could be directed to the Applicant when they come up, appear before you. ALAMEDA:Any questions for Norman? Commissioner Siracusa? Mr. Torigoe? SIRACUSA:Still, sorry. ALAMEDA:Okay. SIRACUSA:I’m looking at the letter from Troy Kindred of Civil Defense and he says, “The Proposed project lies within the Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Furthermore, the Proposed Project lies within the 20’ elevation mark and could be exposed to storm surge flooding during hurricanes.” This opens up the possibility of non-point source pollution from vehicles and vehicle fluids. “We recommend the Applicant develop an Emergency Plan that addresses all hazards, including tsunami, hurricane, fire, and man-caused disasters.” And my question to you, Norman, is has the Applicant submitted such an emergency plan? HAYASHI:No, the Applicant has not submitted that for the proposed development. That is a condition of approval recommended, that’s Condition No. 11. So at that time, those things identified by the Civil Defense Agency would have to be incorporated in their Emergency Plan. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? EXHIBIT C 3 SIRACUSA:That’s it. ALAMEDA:Okay, any other questions for Norman? All right. Seeing none, will the Applicant or the representative, please come forward? Please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Starting from my far left, could you please state your name and address for the record? SUEDA:Lloyd Sueda, 905 Makahiki Way, Honolulu, Hawai`i. COUSIN:I’m Jerry Cousin, 75-6009 Alii Drive, Kailua-Kona. ALAMEDA:Thanks, Jerry. Thank you. You guys got the Department’s recommendation with conditions and you’ve heard some of our discussion. You have any comments, or questions, or things that need clarifying? SUEDA:In talking to Jerry with all of the proposals by the Planning Department, I think we will abide by all of these conditions, except, not except for, but I wanted to speak about No. 3, which requires a consolidation of Parcel 86 and 87, you know, although we’re basically in 87, 88. And as I told, I think we talked about it at one time, Norman, what we did was 86 and 87, as it is today or prior to today, had a different subdivision line, that with this increase in square footage some of the building would encroach over the property line. So what we did, and it has been completed already, is that we did a consolidation and a resubdivision. So if you look at the line, we resubdivided 86 and 87 so there would be no encroachment over a property line. ALAMEDA:Okay. Norman? HAYASHI:Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just to clarify and point out that this is the line that divides Parcel 86 from Parcel 87. Yes, the Applicant has submitted a consolidation/resubdivision application to create the line as such, to move the line from here to this blue line. So this side of the blue line would be Parcel 86. However, that application is still pending with the Planning Department. That is why we decided to include that particular condition. So the consolidation/resubdivision has not been finalized. ALAMEDA:Do you have any comment to that, sir? SUEDA:That’s correct. ALAMEDA:Okay. Go ahead. COUSIN:The reason that the property we would like to stay subdivided is really at the wish of our landlord, Lanihau Properties. And at the termination of our lease, they would like to have the ability to rent the parcel, if need be, to different people because of the size of the different parcels. There’s no guarantee that they could rent or lease out a parcel that large to any one renter and have to reapply for a subdivision in the future.So they would prefer to leave EXHIBIT C 4 them subdivided because of our leases, although corresponding are separate on each of the three lots. SIRACUSA:Point of order. ALAMEDA:Okay. SIRACUSA:Were they sworn in? ALAMEDA:Yes, they were. SIRACUSA:I missed it. ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Just to make sure, Norman, when you were talking about a consolidation/resubdivision, is that what you were referring to in No. 3 on the conditions? ‘Cause I think they, I believe the Applicants seem to think that we’re asking them to consolidate it into -. HAYASHI:Oh, yeah. I think the wording should be “Parcels 86 and 87 shall be consolidated and resubdivided.” We apologize for that. SUEDA:All right. COUSINS:Oh, okay. SUEDA:Thank you. MCCALL:Okay, so we’re clear then. COUSIN:We’d be happy to. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner McCall for that clarification. Any other questions for the Applicants? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I have one concern in the SMA application here. Basically, it’s our duty on SMA applications to protect the coastal waters; and the only part of this application that’s a concern to me is it looks like you’re going to pave over that huge lot right there on the left which is, you know, quite close to the ocean. And I know the condition of your SMA permit says that “All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site….” So you’re going to dispose of it on site, but on site is very close to the ocean. So, for me, there’s a concern that we are responsible for protecting the ocean so I expect you can do this and not harm the ocean. But I feel like I need a better showing from you, or the Planning Director, or whomever, just how you’re do it and a credible way that I can feel confident that we are not relinquishing our responsibility to the Department of Public Works or something to protect the ocean. So do you have any plans that you can tell me about or -? EXHIBIT C 5 SUEDA:So, well, not at this time. However, we will abide by this; and what it would be is the series of drywell that we’ll be providing on the site. And I think we still have this so-called Clean Water Act that we need to abide by. So whatever the governmental agencies require, at the time, will be completed and done to dispose of any surface water in this parking lot. GRAHAM:I’m just thinking that we are also the governmental agency and it’s sort of our responsibility, too, to keep the water clean. So, Chris, do you have any thoughts on this? And I’m sure you can understand what my concern is, and I just don’t like to pass the responsibility on for something this size this close to the ocean as if it’ll all just be taken care of downstream in time here. YUEN:Well, you mean, are you concerned about nutrients from surface water that gets into the groundwater? Because the normal conditions of the development would require that they have drywells that take the runoff water and put it into a drywell about 20 foot deep; and then it’s rock, and that’s what would happen.You wouldn’t have to take care of every single, the Public Works requirement is for the 10-year, one-hour storm, which is roughly a two-inch an hour rainfall, which is a considerable rain. And that is a condition of the SMA permit. It’s also something that the Public Works Department would make them do as a matter of normal course, even outside the SMA, when they submit their civil drawings for this development of the site. ALAMEDA:Mr. Graham? GRAHAM:Yeah. My concern is that, like I think Public Works is going to make sure you do the drywells in such a way that all the water is going to get in the drywells, like what you’re saying, instead of runoff to adjacent properties. However, this is a parking lot for your cars. There could be oil, gasoline, whatever else comes from cars. So that can all go in the drywell; and that’s all in the drywell very close to the ocean.So it’s not going to get the normal long-distance filtering as it works its way to the ocean that you would get on something more mauka. I know in past cases, not recently, but from a couple of years ago, there were some issues about some kind of filtering done on the drywell to be sure nothing got in there that didn’t belong. I’m also concerned that if a lot of water goes in the drywell here, how might it affect the flow of the other water going mauka-makai coming around. You know, I don’t have the right questions to ask. I just want to let you know about my concerns. And, you know, I don’t feel like I want to oppose the project because of this, but, you know, my sense is the homework has not been done adequately for me to feel like I can pass the buck. ALAMEDA:Okay. YUEN:Yeah. Well. Let me just make a couple of comments on that. I did see a study fairly recently that show that the amount of nutrients from parking lot runoff is quite low. There’s nearly nothing in parking lot runoff that causes nutrients.Oil is not soluble in water and, hence, does not tend to be carried with water. You’ll see when there’s a hard rain on an oily surface, you’ll see some water, some oil on the surface of that water, but it’s not typically carried with water the same way that a dissolved mineral like calcium would be carried with it. Finally, there are some things that if there are problems they are so much broader than the application that we have in front of us, that I’d hate to deal with it on the level of the application. Because if this is a problem, then the roads are all problems, the parking lots are all problems. Alii Drive is EXHIBIT C 6 a problem, for example, you know, you have all these paved surfaces that are used by cars, and if runoff from these onto the ground is not sufficiently cleaned by going through lava rock before it gets to groundwater or goes out to the sea, then we have a problem that is of a, you know, magnitude of thousands of times greater than any of the individual applications that we have before us. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, I want to give you an opportunity to respond. GRAHAM:Yeah. And so, you know, I don’t want to put your application -. Maybe the only thing I can really do is when it comes time to make motions, I can make a motion that we continue it for a period till you guys can research it more. But since I’m doing this as a question to you, do you have any insight as to anything that you might, could do between now and the next meeting that would help bring more specificity other than what the Planning Director is saying towards a belief on my and our part that there will not be a problem on water going towards the ocean through the drywells? SUEDA:Well, I think the normal direction that we would do is that, assuming we get an approval on the SMA and assuming we’ll go in for a permit, Public Works at that time that’s their job and their responsibility to resolve this issue. Isn’t that it, Chris? At that time if they decide, whatever the reason may be for right next to the ocean, decide to put a filter in, that’s their decision. I don’t think it’s the Applicant’s decision at this time. I think we’re just trying to get an SMA approval at this time; and I think all the detailed things will get resolved during the permit process. COUSIN:If I can add, the one thing that I can, rest assured from my perspective as a General Manager and speaking for our owner is it’s bad business for us not to be a good community citizen. So we would not want to do anything that would give us bad press because it’s bad business. And we’re about to invest $2-1/2 to $3 million in a facility; and it would all go to waste if on the front page of West Hawai`i Today somebody said that, you know, we were having all kinds of bad runoff into the ocean or creating environmental problems. So it’s in our best interest as a business, not just to comply with the law for legality’s sake or to comply with policies of the Public Works for that, but for the purpose of good business and to be a good community citizen. So although I’m not a technical adviser on this, and I depend on Lloyd for that from the prospect of business, there’s nothing that we wouldn’t do to make sure that this was right and met all County standards. If we couldn’t do that then we just wouldn’t do the project. It’s that simple for us. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. I know that there’s some kind of material that’s used when there are oil slicks on the ocean that are sort of like a foam that they spray on the surface and all the oil sticks to it. I don’t know if that’s ever used in drywells, in situations like this to keep the oil separated from the rest of the water that’s going out. But I noticed on Condition No. 6, it says, “All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties,” but it does not say, “shall not be directed towards the ocean.” YUEN:Well, that’s the on-site, that’s the on-site part. And then it can’t get to the ocean without going through an adjacent property because the property, this property is not on EXHIBIT C 7 the ocean. Also, the only, and this also relates to Mr. Graham’s question, in the TSA rezoning, actually more rising out of the State Land Use Commission proceedings, there’s an experimental project to do oil water separators around the drywells. There is a device that goes around a drywell, it’s not cheap but it’s basically a filter, and it takes the oil from going into the drywell. It was going to be an experimental project to see if there was really very much oil that went into them in the first place. I’m not sure what happened with that project. Come to think of it, I think that the subdivision itself has not been developed yet. So I don’t think that we’d have any data on that. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, follow-up? SIRACUSA:It’s too bad that there is no data on it because I can imagine that over a period of time when you think of how many, you know, paved surfaces we have that are, have the potential to leach petroleum residues into the ocean that it’s too bad we don’t have that. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I share the concerns of Commissioner Graham and Commissioner Siracusa. I guess one of the statements made earlier about, you know, this consolidation and resubdivision is that the landowner wants to reserve options. I guess the way the property is developed, maybe this is for staff but, the one lot that’s basically being built out, I don’t know what number that is, that could not be used separate from the parking area, or could it? Am I misconstruing things? Is there adequate parking on that lot for the square footage that is being built on it? ALAMEDA:Norman? HAYASHI:Your question is whether this lot here has adequate parking? IWASHITA:If it’s built, after the build-out, there won’t be? HAYASHI:No. IWASHITA:There won’t be? HAYASHI:No. IWASHITA:So the adjoining parcel would have to be used to meet the parking requirement for that build-out? HAYASHI:Correct. IWASHITA:Thank you. Does the Applicant understand that? SUEDA:That’s correct. EXHIBIT C 8 IWASHITA:I guess my concern is raised because one of the comments, or maybe I misunderstood, was that the landlord wanted the option to lease out the parcel separately. But in my mind that won’t be possible and that’s why I asked for the clarification. WATANABE:That is correct, but 35 years from now. COUSIN:Yeah, that would 35 years from now, at the end of our lease; and I wouldn’t know if Mr. Greenwell or any of our properties would want to destroy the building and do something completely different with it. IWASHITA:Oh, okay. COUSIN:I mean, because there’s no guarantee that, you know, that he’d want to leave the building up; and I think he wants to have that option if we choose not to renew our lease 35 years from now. IWASHITA:Okay. But that doesn’t make sense, because then you don’t need a resubdivision if you’re going to tear the building down. You don’t have encroachment problems. WATANABE:That’s right. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Chris, the subdivision you’re talking about, that’s the one that was just mauka of the National Park over here? Is that -? YUEN:That’s right. And I think the National Park pushed for this because of the pond, Kaloko Pond, being on the park; and that’s why that condition. That’s unique to that one project that you have these oil-water separators. MCCALL:Okay. I had thought that that was a, at least what came from that thing was that this is something that is already working that has, it wasn’t experimental but -. YUEN:Well, it’s experimental here. I mean, that’s something that’s -. MCCALL:Okay. I think it has been used on the mainland. I think it is a proven thing there. YUEN:Right. MCCALL:And, I mean, could we put a -? YUEN:Right. It’s typically used on the mainland where you have storm drain that goes straight to a river, for example, or a pond; and, so, that’s quite commonly used to separate out the water. There was a question here of given, you know, very dry conditions and, you know, what were the results going to be if he used it here. EXHIBIT C 9 MCCALL:Sure, sure, okay. Well, I was going to say if the Applicant is willing, and I don’t know what the cost is and the Applicant obviously doesn’t either, but, you know, we could put something like that in if that would make some of the other Commissioners feel better about this situation, you know. I don’t see it being a, you know, the amount of drywells they’re going to need for that type of project is not going to be that much anyway. I don’t see it being a major cost, but I don’t really don’t know. ALAMEDA:Okay. Fellow Commissioners, any questions for our Applicants? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Either of you familiar at all with this technology that’s being discussed, the filter around the drywell? SUEDA:Well, I’m familiar with the one that goes directly into a storm drain. There is a sand filter that you can put on; but I have not really heard of this, when you do it to a drywell. I don’t know how you do that one. But there’s definitely sand filters for drainage systems that go directly into a storm drain that goes directly into the ocean. IWASHITA:And that sand filter is intended to catch oil and other -? SUEDA:Whatever sediments -. IWASHITA:Petroleum sediment, those kinds -? SUEDA:There is such a thing, yes. IWASHITA:And it has to be -? SUEDA:Yes, but necessarily -. I don’t know anything about this drywell thing. I never heard of an application with drywell, only in a direct runoff into a storm drain. IWASHITA:And those sand systems require cleaning and maintenance? SUEDA:It’s a maintenance issue. Every so many months you have to clean the sand filters. IWASHITA:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Seeing no further questions. There isn’t any testimony on this particular agenda item, so I’d like to turn it back to our Applicants again. This is your last chance before we entertain a motion to state anything else that perhaps is on your mind, or maybe any questions, or any clarifications on any issue? COUSIN:I know Commissioner Siracusa mentioned landscaping on Lot 86; and regarding that and the plan that we had approved with Kailua Village Design Commission, you would see that there is significant landscaping on Lot 86, EXHIBIT C 10 as well as 87 in the front where there’s no building, and also on Lot 88 as well. So I think that the landscaping is going to be significantly more than what exists now and should meet the requirements. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Mr. Sueda? SUEDA:Just to expand on that. They were so specific that they really told us what kind of palm trees that they wanted at the Kailua -. They wanted a lo‘ulu palm which is the only native Hawaiian palm trees that’s in Hawai`i. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Careful now, you’re talking to our expert over there so -. Is that true, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well, I was just looking at these photos of Parcel 88 and all I see is weeds. So, that’s not the parcel that you started landscaping yet. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any other questions for the Applicants? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I just want to kind of sum up what I’ve heard and, you know, about my concern, which Commissioner McCall’s suggestion was certainly useful to me. So the way I kind of feel is if you’re willing to put in a filtration system that would catch the oil and similar products, you know, then I’m certainly okay with this. Or if you’d rather continue the hearing for the next month and come up with some alternative plan that’ll do instead, I’m okay with that. But I just feel like I wanted it to be addressed. ALAMEDA:Okay. Seeing no further questions and considering that there’s no testimony, you can be seated. We can entertain a motion at this time. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah. I’ll take a shot at this motion since it would be in the affirmative and won’t put us in the kind of quandary like we were in in the previous one where we had a negative motion made. I move that J. R. Kona Acquisitions, LLC, Special Management Area Use Permit, SMA 06-00013, be approved, based on the Director’s Recommendations. ALAMEDA:All right. Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe. Is there a second? GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:Seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I would suggest an amendment, an additional condition requiring some filtration system around the drywells intended to catch any oil, or petroleum products, or sediment, as an additional condition, I guess in the form, subject to the review and approval by the Director. ALAMEDA:An additional amendment was, motion was -. EXHIBIT C 11 WATANABE:Did we get one second, though? ALAMEDA:Yeah, that’s what I was going to ask now. An additional amendment was, a motion was made by Commissioner Iwashita. Is there a second? GRAHAM:Second. ALAMEDA:Seconded by Commissioner Graham. Let’s take a vote on the amendment at this time. Norman? On the amendment only. MCCALL:Is this voting to amend, amend the main motion? ALAMEDA:Yes. MCCALL:Couldn’t we just ask the makers of the motion? I think if it’s okay with the makers of the motion, we’re okay. SIRACUSA:Yeah on the -. WATANABE:I was kind of hoping that I could get someone who wasn’t looking for an amendment to do the second just so that we could discuss it; and then if amongst, you know, because then you don’t have to take a vote. It would be clear amongst us, that, yeah, we don’t have the votes so we need to put that in, you know. That’s what I was looking for. That’s why I asked do we have a second. Because that way then during the discussion that typically follows the motion, then -. MCCALL:Fred seconded your motion. WATANABE:Oh, Fred did? MCCALL:Yeah. WATANABE:Oh, excuse me. Okay. GALDONES:The main motion was seconded. But on the amendment, it’s standing by itself. So we’re going to deal with the amendment by itself first and then go back to the main motion. WATANABE:Oh, okay. I’m sorry, I guess I missed that part. ALAMEDA:No problem. HAYASHI:The amendment was seconded by Commissioner Graham. ALAMEDA:Right. And I was just asking our Corp. Counsel if you could just call a roll call on that, just to see where we’re at. RHO:Before you do that, can I say something? EXHIBIT C 12 ALAMEDA:Sure. Commissioner Rho? ROE:First, I know I’m not supposed to ask him a question but I will, anyway. How many cars would be in that parking lot? You can only -. COUSIN:Between 150 and 175 cars. ROE:Okay. So in the previous project that we denied, there’d be a 120 parking spaces; and these are cars that have 15,000 to maybe 150,000 miles on them. I’m talking about the previous project in the parking lot; and they’re probably closer to the water than this project. So, in my view, if there’s a requirement for brand new cars in the parking lot to have this filtration, then whenever there’s another project that comes up that needs a Special Management Area, whatever that is called, then we need to consider making that a requirement. I mean, I’m all for the environment and whatever. I’m just saying if you’re making a requirement for this project, the next project that comes up I’ll be sure to bring that up. Because if you look at my garage, you’ll see this mark in the garage for two cars. I know of a condominium on Oahu that asked the owners to clean that up; and if you don’t clean it up, they hire people to clean it up. So, for every parking space that we have, we need to get everybody to clean up their oil spillage, or whatever that’s, I mean, I don’t even know what it’s called. I just wanted to say that. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Sure. And that’s a good, that’s part of the discussion for that second motion. Is there another discussion on the item before we ask for a roll call on the second, the amendment to the original motion. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I think that’s a good idea, so I made the motion. ALAMEDA:Okay. Any other discussion for that? GALDONES:It’s just clarification on the motion, if Mr. Iwashita could read the, repeat his motion. ALAMEDA:Sure. Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA:My motion is, subject to Commissioner Graham’s editing, my motion is to add another condition requiring the installation of a filtration system around the drywells intended to filter petroleum products and sediment in a form subject to review and approval by the Director. ALAMEDA:Is that the motion that you seconded, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Sure it is. ALAMEDA:All right. Commissioner Galdones, is that a clarification enough? GALDONES:Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The difficulty I have with that amendment that’s being introduced is whether that technology does exist at all and whether the Director is EXHIBIT C 13 the one to make the approval. I think it should be coming from the DPW, Department of Public Works. In fact, in Condition No. 7, there is something there in regards to the Department of Public Works, doing a drainage study, and whether -. It has been mentioned that that type of technology exists with a drain going directly into the ocean but whether it’s going into a drywell, that kind of sump, whether there is that kind of filtration system, I’m not comfortable to say impose the condition upon the Applicant if the technology does not exist. That’s the problem I have. ALAMEDA:Okay. And that can be evidenced in your vote. Other comments before we ask for roll call? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I’m willing to change it to subject to approval of the appropriate authority in Public Works as opposed to the Director, our Planning Department Director. ALAMEDA:And that helps, Commissioner Galdones, Mr. Director? YUEN:I can tell you that Public Works does not like the idea of these separators or filters around drywells. They don’t believe that it’s a problem. They do not want, you know, ‘cause the logical extension of this is that the streets would have these separators and they do not believe that it is necessary.So they’re not advocates of it. ALAMEDA:But we still have the motion on the table, so, we’re ready to -? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yeah, can I just, I appreciate Commissioner’s Rho’s comments, which I think are very much on point as well as the Director’s. But I just have a few like attenuating circumstances I’d like to throw on them. First, I think the application we approved before today, the bulk of the impermeable surfaces are going to be more mauka than what this parking lot is. I think in that case, you’re dealing with runoff both from the buildings and from the roads. I think this case is a much more compact issue. So whether you can get by with one drywell or two drywells, your runoff issue where cars are is much more centralized. So it’s much more reasonable to try to filter them in one centralized location rather than in the other case where you have all this parking all over the place and roads. So I think this is a little different than the other one. I also don’t think we have any requirement in here that they only park new cars in this lot. And then, finally, with respect to the Planning Director’s case, situation about the public roads being a comparable issue, this is for private use. This is not generating a large public benefit in a way that Alii Drive or something like that does. So I think our standards are perhaps a little different here. That’s all. ALAMEDA:All right. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Well, my main -. I have a, I guess my issue is, you know, we have a clear statutory mandate on SMA considerations; and that is to protect the public safety and the environment. I mean it’s very clear what we’re supposed to be doing. And to say that, well, Public Works, you know, as a general matter as to all, the way I took it, as to all matters that come before it, you know, doesn’t like these particular technology because they’re afraid they’re going to have to utilize it to protect the environment on our County roads is, to me, I don’t know, it’s Forrest Gump, stupid is is stupid does. If we keep doing the same thing over and over again EXHIBIT C 14 and expect the environment to be protected, we deserve what we get. And, you know, this is a situation close to the ocean. This is a situation where I think you reasonably anticipate that there will be problems if you don’t do something. We need to start somewhere; and this is a good place to start if it hasn’t actually been done before. And I guess there’s indication that the National Park was involved and it asked for it, it got it. So, you know, seems like what’s good for the National Park ought to be good for us, our ocean. ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, I mean, well, I guess I was the one who brought or, I don’t know if anybody brought this up or not. But, anyway, at this point, I’m not comfortable with, even though I brought this up with voting in favor of this amendment for several reasons: One is that we don’t know what this thing costs, we don’t know what the burden is that we’re putting on these people. And I’m not willing to, you know, I mean, if these costs a million bucks apiece obviously, you know, I’m not willing to do that. I do also feel that whatever we do needs to be, we need to be fair and even-handed. If we’re doing this for this, we do need to do it for every other SMA permit. And I believe like Commissioner Rho that this, you know, that other permits that we have had would be far, you know, worse polluters than this. I just don’t see this being a real problem. I mean, we can make this information available to Big Island Honda; and if they want to be good environmental stewards and they find out that they can do this for, you know, thousand bucks a drywell, they probably will want to do it and, you know, get some good PR from it, too. But that’s as far as I would be willing to go at this point. ALAMEDA:All right. I’m ready to call for the vote. Any objection? Seeing none, staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, and the motion is to add a condition requiring a filtration system around the drywell, subject to approval by the Planning Director, as Commissioner Iwashita had recommended or suggested. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho? RHO:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:No. EXHIBIT C 15 HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:No. HAYASHI:Okay. And Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:No. HAYASHI:Okay. Motion does not carry. ALAMEDA:Rodney, can you restate your motion again, the original motion? WATANABE:I move that J. R. Kona Acquisitions, LLC, Special Management Area Use Permit, SMA 06-00013, be approved based on the Director’s Recommendations. ALAMEDA:Thank you. And it was seconded by Commissioner Galdones, correct? GALDONES:Yes. But, Commissioner Watanabe, that is with the understanding that Condition No. 3 is amended to include the word “and resubdivided?“ WATANABE:Oh, that’s correct, yeah, “and resubdivided,” right. ALAMEDA:Okay. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I guess I would suggest, given the concerns about the cost of what I was suggesting and the viability of it, I would like to have the matter continued to get more information and have a full record in order to properly consider whether it would be reasonable to impose that condition. ALAMEDA:Would you like to stick that in the motion? WATANABE:You got a motion on the table. The only other thing -. ALAMEDA:The amendment or -? How could we adjust that? WATANABE:The only other thing you could do is basically ask for us to reconsider. IWASHITA:No, I could move -. I don’t want to make an unnecessary vote. If it’s, you know, if the feeling is that, you know, as Commissioner McCall stated that there’s not enough information, then I think we should get more, you know, allow time and get more information so EXHIBIT C 16 that it can be addressed. That would seem to me the reasonable thing to do, rather than pushing it through today and doing it on an incomplete record. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. This is an issue, though, that I feel should be pursued, but I think we need more information. And I’m wondering if it would be possible for the Director to ask Public Works if they have someone with expertise in the matter, if they could make a presentation to the Commission, and that would include various methods for dealing with petroleum residues and drywells, and costs, and that sort of thing. And then we’d have some information. But until then I don’t see that we can make a decision to impose that sort of thing. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, are you saying then that we need a follow-up presentation and that presentation, or this application -? SIRACUSA:No, not on this application. ALAMEDA:Okay, just in the future reference? SIRACUSA:This is a future thing that possibly someone, if Public Works has someone with expertise in this matter, they could educate us. ALAMEDA:All right. I think the request is noted by our Director.Is there any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion is to approve the proposal as recommended by the Planning Director and with amendment to Condition No. 3. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho? EXHIBIT C 17 RHO:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:No. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries, seven to two. ALAMEDA:Thank you. The discussion ended at 3:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT C 18